So the market size based model is on its way out. I think most of us would agree with that. Subscription based services will be taking over the sports broadcasting market in the not too distant future.

With that in mind, what is the best approach for the SEC(or any league) to take in acquiring new members that will boost the strength and profitability of their conference?

I have a few ideas beyond what we've discussed previously. We all know who the usual suspects are and why they are so valuable. That's been discussed ad nauseum in no small part to my many repeated ramblings on the topic.

What I would like to discuss here are the dynamics behind viewership and what exactly would make one more likely to purchase a subscription to a conference network or perhaps an ESPN package that includes all its products.

There are a few obvious answers...

1) People want to watch compelling competition. Right now, the SEC is the best at delivering this most often. Clearly, the SEC would want to expand with that in mind.

2) People want to watch their favorite school regardless of its relative success. This one is a little harder to define in hard numbers, but we can assume that most alumni and local populations near flagship programs will tune in with regularity. Clearly, the SEC would take this into account.

Beyond the obvious question of 'who is available,' there really aren't many clear cut qualifications for a program outside of the above.

Everyone is certainly welcome to contribute their own ideas here, but one question I would like answered is the matter of whether a local product being involved in a particular league increases the value of that league in said locality? Whether the addition of a local product compels local viewers to tune in and adds to the overall viewership of a potential collection of products, like a conference?

The example that comes to mind is Rutgers. The Big Ten went after a program with a long but mostly hapless athletic history. The university itself was a nice addition, but the real reason they got in was because they occupy a very populous state in NJ and are located near NYC. Their addition has paid off for the Big Ten despite the fact that a relatively low percentage of the population in the region actually watches Rutgers with frequency. Apparently, the BTN is now on basic cable in NYC, a coup indeed.

People say that Rutgers is the most popular product in the region, but that's mostly irrelevant. Before being added to the Big Ten, RU's ratings were very paltry. The image of being the tallest midget comes to mind.

So even though most of us could agree that the market-size based model is dying, although it won't be completely dead for a few decades probably, does the Rutgers example tell us that there is still room for a market based approach to expansion?

Allow me to explain further, what I'm observing here is that Rutgers' addition to the Big Ten brought more interest from locals not only in Rutgers itself but the league as a whole. Obviously, there are diminishing returns and this isn't going to apply to any program in any market, but is it true that adding programs really does grow the overall pie even if the content and the original degree of popularity are lacking?

I would say the equivalent for the SEC would be getting into the NC/VA market.

Its THE market that the SEC wants above all others but has the hardest time getting into. We want it because population wise, adding those two states is the equivalent of adding another Florida to the league and that cant be ignored.

So like Rutgers, I think we'd be willing to take someone like say NCSU who, outside some fantastic basketball teams from the mid 70s-mid 80s, has mostly been a model of athletic ineptitude....but still gets us into our most highly coveted market.

Of course there is a competition between the existing leagues for some of these same markets but here are a few:

SEC: Va., Nc., Dallas Tx. market and secondarily maybe Cincinnati/Dayton mkt.
B1G: Va., NC., maybe Ga. with Ga. Tech, possibly New England area with a UCONN.(bball and hockey helps network), remote chances with the Dallas Tx. market
Big 12: Florida market with FSU & Miami/or UCF? Of course if FSU ever came there would be some more regional partners coming. For the Big 12 it is this market or bust I'm afraid.
PAC 12: pretty much Texas or bust. I think they need 6 teams to get Texas to come because Texas wants partners and doesn't want a ton of West coast start times.
ACC: Texas

(01-25-2016 11:40 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I would say the equivalent for the SEC would be getting into the NC/VA market.

Its THE market that the SEC wants above all others but has the hardest time getting into. We want it because population wise, adding those two states is the equivalent of adding another Florida to the league and that cant be ignored.

So like Rutgers, I think we'd be willing to take someone like say NCSU who, outside some fantastic basketball teams from the mid 70s-mid 80s, has mostly been a model of athletic ineptitude....but still gets us into our most highly coveted market.

True post 10th. Outside of maybe landing Oklahoma, NC/VA markets are growing at a huge rate. An SEC school in the middle of that area would scare the heck out of the ACC.

So sorry 10th but the world we are moving into North Carolina and Virginia's markets will no longer pay us for anything but actual eyeballs. From that standpoint they both get their butts whipped by Oklahoma and Florida State as the nation tunes in to watch the latter two schools.

To 16 I go for the Sooners and Noles. At 18 add Clemson and Texas. Then it's Katie bar the door for the rest!

That SEC couldn't be touched. If you hate the Horns and I know you do then just add Virginia Tech and Clemson to 18 and I'm fine with that.

(01-26-2016 11:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So sorry 10th but the world we are moving into North Carolina and Virginia's markets will no longer pay us for anything but actual eyeballs. From that standpoint they both get their butts whipped by Oklahoma and Florida State as the nation tunes in to watch the latter two schools.

To 16 I go for the Sooners and Noles. At 18 add Clemson and Texas. Then it's Katie bar the door for the rest!

That SEC couldn't be touched. If you hate the Horns and I know you do then just add Virginia Tech and Clemson to 18 and I'm fine with that.

Substitute Kansas for the conference killing cancer from Austin (we need more BB marquee teams) and I'm sold

I have previously been against adding TCU, but have recently begun to think they might be a good consolation if Oklahoma isn't available. As a national brand, Oklahoma would be preferred and could help with getting Kansas (forming a nice grouping of Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas). However, if the Okies are unavailable, TCU is attractive as an SEC entry in the DFW market.

So for 15/16 I prefer Oklahoma and Kansas and for 17/18 I prefer Florida State and either North Carolina/Duke/NCSU.